🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."